Fort Canning Park: Whats there?

Right, so in the previous post I mentioned that I would visit Fort Canning Park (FCP) to get some first-hand experience of how the park is like. So I paid it a visit after class on Friday and it was surprisingly more complex than I initially thought. In this post we shall try to apply the DPSIR framework and relate what I saw to it.

DPSIR

Driving Forces & Pressures

Lets start by identifying the driving forces which apply pressure onto the park. First off, the historical value of the park. As mentioned in the previous post, FCP holds significant historical value due to its existence as a former Malay palace site and WW2 bunker.

However, the historical sites of the park are located outdoors and naturally are subjected to the elements which over time could lead to them being reclaimed by the natural growth of greenery. Humans may no longer be able to enjoy the history attached to these sites if they are overgrown and covered with park flora. Thus there is pressure upon the natural environment when these sites are cleared of greenery.

Second, the park is often used to host various events for the public. Most of these events are rather large scale thus raising the possibility of damage to the flora and fauna of the park if the crowd is particularly rowdy. Thus these mass events apply pressure to the overall condition of the park.

Responses

Interestingly, the body in charge of Fort Canning has applied a hybrid approach to maintaining the balance between the natural environment and historical sights. Some locales such as the Fort Gate constructed in 1859 are left relatively untouched by nature. Some parts of it are covered in moss but it is clearly recognizable as a man-made construct.

Whereas some sights such as the Fort Walls are fully covered by roots and plants.

This implies a hybrid approach to site maintenance by allowing lesser landmarks to be fully integrated into the natural environment whilst keeping the major sights visible to visitors.

This hybrid approach is also seen in how the park authorities manage their event stages. Take the park greens for example:

The park greens consist mostly of natural grass as seen in the picture on the left. However certain spots do have a layer of artificial turf instead. I believe these spots are used for the placement of stages or heavy equipment when the greens are used for major events.

State of Environment and Impact

By adopting this hybrid approach to site maintenance, the park authorities strike a balance between keeping up the cultural aspects of the park whilst reducing the impact on the environment as a result of structure maintenance.

The laying of artificial turf however clearly detracts from the natural environment of the park. It might be worthwhile from an economical point of view but the laying of turf ensures that no additional green growth can occur here. I guess that in this case, the governing body had to make the conscious choice to create this event area to accommodate other stakeholders besides the environmentalists.

Other Thoughts

There are also a few more interesting points I learnt about FCP in my trip there.

First, FCP has a reservoir near its peak; this reservoir serves as a water catchment area that can provide for the surroundings. However, I wasn’t able to really get any closer to as the area is off limits. I felt this was interesting as it adds another dimension to FCP as not only is it a greenery park, it also has water bodies which changes the make-up of its ecological system.

Second, FCP routinely uses the branches and trunks of trees that have been trimmed off as part of the park décor. There are numerous little wood sculptures from the parks trees littering the park. This is a rather good use of the old material as the wood is not disposed of but instead reused to improve the aesthetics of the park.